Forum: Bringing developers, neighborhoods together

Today's Forum was written by Rex Gonnsen, a landscape architect who lives in Clarke County.

On March 12, the newspaper ran an editorial pleading for continued dialogue between neighborhood residents and developers. This is a good idea but the means for achieving this goal do not exist.

Many neighborhood groups are loosely organized and may only meet if there is a perceived threat to their quality of life. Developers, for the most part, would not know who to contact even if they wanted to meet with a neighborhood group. Many developers are coming from other parts of Georgia and even from other states.

The only dialogue officially endorsed presently is at public hearings. The developers or their representatives talk to the planning commission. Neighborhood residents talk to the planning commission. The two parties usually have not spoken to one another prior to the public hearing. The problem is that the two sides have no forum for an engagement. If there is any talking done it is after petitions have been filed. By then, the stakes have been raised because a lot of money has been spent on plans, contracts and filing fees.

So, how can neighborhoods and developers communicate? The answer lies in having support of the local government. Acknowledged neighborhood districts with organized leadership within the districts are achievable. A developer could approach such a district for inquiries or to give a first draft presentation of an idea. The proposal may or may not be welcomed but at least no developer could be accused of not trying.

The second question has to do with making this approach effective. Admittedly, a lot of people don't want to see this happen. Some are afraid of giving neighborhoods too much power. It will be up to citizens to make this work. Neighborhoods have to recognize the inevitable; development is going to occur in some fashion or another like it or not.

In one of his trips to Athens, James Kunstler told of how his town worked with a national bookstore chain. He said ''We beat up the developer.'' He went on to add that the town got a great piece of architecture out of the deal. His point was that the town didn't just say no. They said yes, but set the standards high and the developer agreed to meet the standards. Neighborhood groups need to learn that sometimes it is better to say yes to a development if the developer is willing to build quality into their project. Frequently, a rezone is the best way to achieve such quality. There may be some tradeoffs such as increased traffic or the loss of green space. However, an allowed use that requires no neighborhood input is often constructed that turns out to be a greater disaster for a neighborhood than one negotiated through a rezone.

Finally, developers must do their part. This community has grown tired of cheap, ugly development. It is unfortunate when low quality buildings come out of the ground. Garish architecture is equally bad. Such development stays around for a long time. A developer needs to think of the resale value of what they are building. Rarely is a commercial building constructed today that will house the same use in years to come. Chain stores are abandoning locations, leaving behind their skin like 17-year locusts. The old architectural rule of ''form follows function'' doesn't seem to fit today. If building shells are likely to be vacated then thoughtful developers will have to build something that another occupant is anxious to move into. Hopefully, the structure is one the neighborhood can take pride in.

This article published in the Athens Banner-Herald on Monday, May 7, 2001.